The voice of theologians in
general councils from Pisa to Trent

Summary

In the nine general councils surveyed, theologians played
various roles, ranging from witnesses and advisors to full voting members,
either as procurators for others or as theologians in their own right. The
various reasons offered to explain these shifts are here evaluated. Was the
changing status of theologians determined by the needs of each council and
their own behavior? Was it a matter of shifting ecclesiologies and a perceived
return to ancient norms? Was their status inversely proportional to the
bishops' theological competency? Or was it only the terminology used to
describe or mask their role which really changed?

Reprinted by permission of the
publisher.

Theologians during the Renaissance acquired and then lost voting
rights equal to those of bishops in the general councils of the Church. In this
article I trace the changing status of theologians and suggest reasons for
these developments.(1) That there are two teaching offices in the Church, the
one entrusted to bishops, the other to doctors of theology, has been commonly
taught on the basis of Scripture and tradition . Two classical
scriptural texts are often cited to illustrate this: 1 Timothy 3:2, where it is
required that a bishop be an apt teacher, and Ephesians 4:11, where among the
offices in the Church those of apostle and of teacher are enumerated. The
"successors to the apostles" (successors to those commissioned emissaries who
had witnessed the Resurrection of Jesus) came to be considered episcopi, that
is, "overseers," or bishops.(2) One of the classical expositions on the topic
of teaching offices in the Church is Gratian's Decretum (ca. 1140), the
notable medieval textbook of canon law, where the distinction is drawn between
rendering an authoritative judgment in a case and expounding the meaning of
Sacred Scripture . After stating that St. Peter needed the keys of
knowledge and power to render a judgment, Gratian's dictum concludes: "It is
evident that writers on the Sacred Scriptures, although they surpass pontiffs
in knowledge and so are to be preferred to them in questions of scriptural
interpretation, take second place to them in deciding cases since they have not
been elevated to the same high dignity."(3) On the eve of the period under
consideration, one of the leading theologians and later a prominent churchman,
Pierre d'Ailly (1350-1420), addressed the question of the respective roles of
theologians and bishops in defining doctrine. In his Treatise on Behalf of the
Faith against a Certain Dominican Friar Giovanni di Montesono, dated about
1388, d'Ailly asserts that "it pertains to doctors of theology to define by a
doctrinal and Scholastic determination those things which are of the faith."(4)
They can render their determinations separately and independently of
bishops.(5) Indeed, the determinations of theologians should precede the
decisions of prelates and others in order to keep them from error. Thus, the
proper procedure is that "neither the pope nor doctors of canon law, if they
are not theologians, should discuss in a Catholic way or determine
authoritatively (authentice) anything regarding those things that are of the
faith without the previous doctrinal determination of the theologians."(6)
D'Ailly argued that bishops have a role in defining doctrine because they have
been set de jure divino over the Church to rule it and determining
questions of faith is central to ruling the Church. It is by judicial authority
that bishops "define Catholic truths" and "condemn heretics ."(7) Should a
bishop lack personal expertise in theology, however, he would act irrationally
were he to go against the opinions of the doctors of theology.(8) Perhaps it
would be fair to conclude from d'Ailly's remarks that it is the role of
theologians to determine what is true and of bishops to decide what truths are
so important that to deny them will incur a penalty.

The one forum in which the two offices of episcopi and doctores
came together to collaborate on the highest level in the Church was a general
council. Historically, over the centuries bishops have come to councils with
their theological advisers to help them define doctrine. In the early centuries
of the Church, bishops at times shared with priests and deacons the power to
define doctrine judicialiter. By the eighth and ninth centuries in the West
abbots were increasingly given a deliberative voice in councils. Later on this
voice was also extended to cardinals and generals of religious orders.(9)
During the period I am considering, doctors and masters of theology came to
enjoy this same deliberative voice, but then lost it. I examine what happened
at each of the nine councils of this period and try to explain why the
franchise was given or withheld. I then briefly offer an invitation for further
reflection.

THE STATUS OF THEOLOGIANS AT VARIOUS COUNCILS

The nine councils here surveyed vary in importance, in the rank
and number of participants, and in the procedures used to convoke them and
carry out their agenda. Their common denominators are that they were held
during the period 1409-1563 and that they claimed to be at least general
councils.(10) I exclude from consideration the rival councils of the Avignonese
pope Benedict XIII (1394-1417) at Perpignan (1408-1409) and of the Roman pope
Gregory XII (1406-1415) at Cividale (1409). Both councils were poorly attended
and lacked wide support.(11)

The nine councils here studied are considered general councils of
the Western Church, not universal or ecumenical councils of all Christendom,
even though some called themselves such. The Council of Constance (1414-1418)
and the Council of Basel-Lausanne (1431-1449) acknowledged this distinction in
the professions of faith they formulated to be made by newly elected popes, and
Basel went on to use the term "ecumenical" to describe a council at which the
Greeks were represented.(12) The Council of Ferrara-Florence-Rome (1438-1445)
called itself ecumenical from the start because of the anticipated presence of
the Greeks.(13) Even though a significant delegation of Greek prelates did
attend and approve its decrees, the Greek church soon afterward did not
consider the council truly ecumenical because its decrees were not widely
received by the faithful of the East and were formally repudiated by the
Council of Constantinople in 1484 on the grounds of the uncanonical summoning
and composition of the council.(14) Even though the Greek church was not
officially represented nor did it receive their decrees, the three subsequent
councils (Pisa-Milan-Asti-Lyon 1511-1512 , Lateran V 1512-1517 , and Trent
1545-1563 ) used the term "ecumenical" synonymously for or in combination with
the adjectives "universal" and "general" to describe themselves.(15)

Among the nine councils here surveyed, four (Pisa 1409 , Rome
1412-1413 , Pavia-Siena 1423-1424 , and Pisa-Milan-Asti-Lyon) are not included
in the standard Roman listing of recognized general councils. The list,
determined in the late-16th and early-17th centuries, reflects ecclesiological
considerations of its own time and place that were contested by Catholics even
then, and the status of these councils is still under discussion.(16) In the
period here studied, prominent prelates and theologians accepted the legitimacy
of these councils and argued from their procedures in order to establish the
proper status of theologians at councils.(17)

PISA (1409)

The cardinals from the Roman and Avignonese obediences who
convoked this council to heal the Great Western Schism (1378-1417) specifically
invited the universities of Christendom to send their masters of theology to
advise the Council Fathers.(18) At the council they were members of the
deputations organized according to ecclesiastical provinces and could even be
chosen head of a deputation and thus among the restricted number of prominent
clerics who sat with the cardinals in their deliberations.(19) Theologians also
met separately as a group and rendered a judgment that the rival popes were
equivalently guilty of heresy because of their schismatic behavior.(20)
Theologians signed the decree of deposition, but almost always as procurators
for absent prelates and corporations.(21)

ROME (1412-1413)

Meeting in Rome under the presidency of the Pisan pope John XXIII
(1410-1415), this council included theologians among its members who were
active in its proceedings. The University of Paris sent a delegation to the
council. Theologians sat on the conciliar commission that evaluated the
writings of John Wycliffe (ca. 1329-1384) and they signed the decree that
condemned his teachings.(22)

CONSTANCE (1414-1418)

Contrary to the wishes of John XXIII, the council adopted a voting
system by nations in which doctors and licentiates in theology enjoyed an equal
vote with bishops. At formal sessions each nation as a unit cast a single
vote.(23) Whether theologians cast their votes in the nations in their own
right as theologians or as procurators of absent prelates or corporate entities
is a matter of dispute among historians.(24) As theologians they played a
prominent role in the conciliar congregations and commissions that examined
such doctrinal questions as the errors of Jan Hus (c. 1369-1415),(25) the
attacks of Matthew Grabon, O.P., of Wismar on the Brethren of the Common
Life,(26) the abdication, suspension, and deposition of John XXIII, and other
matters.(27)

PAVIA-SIENA (1423-1424)

Once again theologians were granted membership in the various
nations into which the council was divided. Eventually anyone in major orders
was admitted to membership in the conciliar nations, one nation even admitting
laymen. Each member of a nation had equal voting rights within it.(28)
Theologians served as deputies representing their nations and one served as a
nation's president. They thus were present at and voted in the general
congregations.(29)

BASEL-LAUSANNE (1431-1449)

Against the wishes of Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447), the council's
cardinal president, Giuliano Cesarini (1398-1444), had invited the lower clergy
(including masters of theology) to attend the council.(30) They were admitted
to membership in the council and were assigned together with prelates to the
four conciliar deputations where they enjoyed individual voting rights equal to
those of bishops.(31) Theologians could also vote in the general congregations
and sessions where on occasion they and other members of the lower clergy
outvoted the prelates. According to Juan de Segovia (1393-1458), an eminent
member and historian of the council, Eugenius IV acknowledged as valid these
conciliar decrees passed by the lower clergy.(32) On doctrinal questions
theologians were very influential and they became the chief exponents of the
conciliar theory, refusing to allow the pope to transfer the council to Italy
and supporting his deposition and the election of his successor, the anti-pope
Felix V (1439-1449).(33)

FERRARA-FLORENCE-ROME (1438-1445)

Theologians played a prominent role at the papal council assembled
to restore unity between the churches of the West and the East. Eugenius IV
explicitly invited to his council professional theologians, whether by name or
as part of the delegations accompanying religious superiors and bishops.(34)
Theologians who were not prelates served as voting members of two of the three
estates into which the Latin participants were organized, namely the estates
(status) of the religious and of the lower clergy, prelates of the ordinary
secular hierarchy constituting the first of the three estates. Decisions at the
council were made by a two-thirds or majority vote of each estate and all three
estates needed to agree before a decree was approved by the council.(35) The
council also established deputations in which doctrinal issues were discussed
with the Greeks. In these deputations the leading voices were those of the
theologians, with the bishops for the most part sitting, listening, and ready
to give their consent to agreements reached.(36) Theologians also attended the
general congregations where the three estates met and votes were taken.(37)
They did not sign the final decrees because Joseph II, patriarch of
Constantinople (1416-1439), insisted that such a procedure was contrary to
ancient practice and because the theologians were deemed too numerous for all
to sign.(38)

Non-prelate theologians were part of the Greek delegation at the
council. Three official theological advisers to emperor John VIII Palaeologus
(1392-1448), emperor since 1425, were laymen: Georgios Gemistos Plethon (ca.
1355-1452), Georgios Kurtese Scholarios (1405-1472) who was later elected
Patriarch Gennadios (1454-1456), and Georgios Amiroutzes (ca. 1400-d. after
1469).(39) The emperor named Gemistos and Scholarios to the five-member
commission that drafted a statement on Filioque.(40) While the emperor
restricted to bishops and archimandrites the right to speak in the Greek
delegation, he required written vota from "all of our learned men and
philosophers" on the issue of Filioque.(41) In a meeting in the emperor's
presence, all prelates, superiors of monasteries, and clerics accepted the
final statement of doctrinal agreement with the Latins on June 7, 1439. But no
lay or non-prelate clerical theologian or lay official except for the emperor
signed the final decree.(42)

RETREAT FROM THEOLOGIANS' VOTING RIGHTS

This brief review demonstrates that by the mid-15th century
theologians had been granted a deliberative vote in both the conciliarist
(Basel-Lausanne) and papalist (Ferrara-Florence-Rome) councils. Thereafter
writers in the entourage of the popes sought to restrict theologians at
councils to a merely consultative vote.

Agostino Patrizzi (ca. 1435-1494), the papal master of
ceremonies, in his Caeremoniale Romanum (1488) when treating councils claimed
that only popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and generals of religious orders
have a deliberative vote, that theological and canonical experts have only a
consultative vote, and in order to manifest this difference in ceremonies, only
those with a deliberative voice can be seated in sacred robes and give their
judgments in a public session.(43) In his Summa (1480) of the histories of the
councils of Basel and Florence by Juan de Segovia and Domenico Capranica
(1400-1458), Patrizzi insisted that these councils were acting contrary to the
custom of the ancient councils in granting a deliberative vote to
non-mitres.(44)

Domenico Giacobazzi (1444-1528), the eminent canonist whose
Tractatus de concilio (1511-1523) prefaces Mansi's Amplissima collectio, held
that the deliberative vote belongs only to bishops, but can be extended to
others either by the pope who can invite and habilitate others or, in the
pope's absence, by the unanimous consent of the bishops. In general, the most
learned and prudent men who are not bishops should be invited to councils and
given consultative votes.(45) The positions expounded by Patrizzi and
Giacobazzi were followed in subsequent councils.

PISA-MILAN-ASTI-LYON (1511-1512)

Representatives from universities as well as superiors general of
religious orders with their masters of theology were invited to this council by
both the cardinals and princes who convoked it.(46) While the superiors general
who attended apparently did not bring with them masters of theology, the
university delegations included theologians and canonists (e.g., Paris with
theologians and canonists, Toulouse and Poitier with canonists).(47)

Theologians listed as "masters and doctors" (not as
representatives of universities?) were considered members of the council, gave
sermons, sat on conciliar deputations, but had only a consultative voice.(48)
Nonetheless, they were considered so important as members of the council that
Leo X (1513-1521) demanded that six bishops and four prominent masters in
theology and canon law come to Rome to abjure their participation in this
schismatic council.(49)

LATERAN V (1512-1517)

Theologians, although urged to come to the council by Julius II
(1503-1513),(50) were explicitly excluded from conciliar discussions(51) and
apparently were reduced to the status of mere testes or witnesses to the public
proceedings, being listed in the conciliar acta in the same category with
unnamed ambassadors, knights, and curial officials who were present at
sessions.(52) Leo X explicitly urged rulers and universities to send
theologians to the council to help remedy errors in the calendar.(53) While it
is known that he added to the reform deputation non-mitred expert advisers, it
is not clear that he did the same to the faith deputation that already included
some eminent prelate-theologians.(54)

TRENT (1545-1563)

Pope Paul III (1534-1549) and the bishops at Trent were determined
to avoid the problems of Constance and Basel and therefore resisted inviting
universities as such to send representatives to the council.(55) Nonetheless,
theologians from universities did come, but as periti or expert advisers sent
by rulers--e.g., from Louvain by the emperor or regent of the Low Countries,
from Paris by the king of France, and from Coimbra by the king of
Portugal.(56)

When Emperor Charles V (1519-1556) through his ambassadors in
November of 1546 urged that before the decree on justification was promulgated
it should first be approved by the theologians at such major universities as
those of Paris, Louvain, and Salamanca in order to assure that it would be
received by all the Catholic kingdoms, the cardinal-legates (Giammaria del
Monte 1487-1555, later Julius III , Marcello Cervini 1501-1555, later Marcellus
II , and Reginald Pole 1500-1558 ) rejected his proposal as inconvenient,
contrary to conciliar practice, setting a bad precedent, and superfluous
because Paris and Louvain had already condemned Luther's views. The requirement
of prior approval by universities would also grant too much authority to Paris
which held conciliarist views and would diminish the role of the Apostolic See
as the judge of whether or not a decree should be confirmed. The imperial
alternative suggestion of having delegations of theologians sent to the council
from these universities to approve its decrees was also dismissed by the
legates as not giving greater authority to the council. The council's authority
came not from the prestige and learning of the persons who participate in it,
so it was reasoned, but rather from God and the Apostolic See. The legates
suspected that the emperor was not sincere in his proposals, but was merely
looking for a way to delay or prevent the promulgation of the decree.(57)

Besides being sent by rulers, theologians also came as procurators
of absent bishops and as periti accompanying prelates.(58) The bishops were
initially reluctant to grant them any role beyond that of testes at public
sessions who would also be available for consultation.(59) When the bishops
excluded theologians from their deliberations leading up to a session, the
cardinal-legates on the urging of Cardinal Pedro Pacheco (d. 1560) and Cardinal
Cristoforo Madruzzo (ca. 1512-1578) intervened, claiming it was unbecoming
(indecens) not to hear the opinions of the theologians gathered at Trent when
the council treated articles of religion and faith.(60)

Having rejected the deputation system of organization, the council
experimented with classes or particular congregations.(61) To utilize the
professional abilities of the theologians, the legates invited them to
participate in the classes where these experts trained in Scholastic
disputation debated doctrinal questions with bishops whose lack of theological
skills became quickly apparent to all. The bishops found this classes system to
be very odious (odiossima).(62) To restore peace to the house of the Lord, the
legates adopted a new system: beginning on February 20, 1546, congregations of
"minor theologians" (to be distinguished from "major theologians" or prelates
with theological expertise) debated among themselves the theological issues
while the bishops listened silenly.(63) Once the issues had become duly
clarified and something of a consensus emerged among the "minor theologians,"
the bishops by themselves would debate the issues, usually on the basis of a
draft statement drawn up by the "minor theologians." When a consensus seemed to
be emerging among the bishops, new draft statements were often crafted by
committees composed of bishops and "minor theologians" appointed by the
legates. Once a final statement was agreed upon by the bishops, it would on
occasion be sent back by the legates to the "minor theologians" to critique in
private and they could raise questions that would cause the process to begin
all over again.(64) Giammaria del Monte, the cardinal-legate president during
the first period (1545-1549), insisted that what was approved by the council
have the consent of all.(65) Given this procedure, "minor theologians" surely
enjoyed more than merely a consultative voice.(66)

In 1551, when del Monte was now Pope Julius III and the new
cardinal-legate president, Marcello Crescenzio (1500-1552), no longer showed
the same deference to the views of the "minor theologians," the imperial fiscal
advocate at Trent, Francisco Vargas, tried to have the council officially
institutionalize the role of the "minor theologians" in the selection and
formulation of the decrees.(67) His proposal was not adopted apparently because
it would have limited the president's discretionary powers and would have
prolonged the council by mandating additional discussions.(68)

VARIOUS THEORIES TO EXPLAIN THESE DIFFERENCES

Various reasons can be given for the rise and decline of the
status of theologians at these general councils.

AN ANOMALY DUE TO A TIME OF TROUBLES

Karl Joseph Hefele (1809-1893) in the Introduction to his
multivolume history of church councils claimed that the rise of theologians was
an anomaly due to a "time of troubles" in the Church. His citation of sources
in support of this view suggests that what he meant by the troubles was the
period of the Great Western Schism and the time after when conciliarist ideas
still held sway.(69) Although never developed into a coherent explanation,
Hefele seems to suggest that in order to end the chaos in the Church, councils
needed the expertise and prestige of theologians and canonists to depose the
rival popes on grounds of heresy and scandal. The determinationes of
theological faculties, especially those of the University of Paris, carried
much weight. Even after the champions of the conciliarist thesis had succeeded
in restoring church unity, the precedents they had established of granting
voting rights to theologians were followed in councils under the influence of
their ideas.

This argument has some validity up to the election of Martin V in
1417 which ended the Great Western Schism. For the period that ensued when the
power of theologians continued to rise it is unpersuasive. Conciliarist ideas
were not the deciding factor. At the papalist Council of Ferrara-Florence-Rome,
theologians as such were granted individual voting rights in two estates equal
to those enjoyed by cardinals and bishops in the prelates' estate. At the
conciliarist Council of Pisa-Milan-Asti-Lyon theologians were given only a
consultative vote.

DETERMINED BY THE NEEDS OF EACH COUNCIL

The rise and fall in the status of theologians, it has been argued
by some, are explainable according to the particular situation of each council.
Thus theologians were used by those in power to justify the deposition of the
rival popes at Pisa, to strengthen the prestige of John XXIII by their
condemnation of Wycliffe at Rome, to dilute the power of John XXIII's
supporters at Constance, to follow the precedents of Constance on whose
authority Pavia-Siena and Basel-Lausanne were based, and to convince the Greeks
of the validity of the Latins' positions at Florence. But they were reduced to
a consultative role at Pisa-Milan-Asti-Lyon so as to avoid any attacks on this
council's legitimacy for failing to follow traditional practices, at Lateran V
to follow the prescriptions of Patrizzi and Giacobazzi, and at Trent in part so
as to avoid the model of Basel which would have given Protestant theologians a
consultative, if not also a deliberative, voice in the council.(70)

While valid in each particular case, this argument fails to
explain the pattern or gradual progressions in the rise and fall of the
theologians' status.

DEPENDENT ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THEOLOGIANS

The rise and fall in the status of theologians can be attributed
to their responsible or irresponsible behavior at councils. Thus they
contributed positively at councils to the ending of the Great Western Schism
and of the Eastern Schism and hence grew in power and prestige, but acted
irresponsibly and self-destructed at Basel by deposing a legitimate pope and
reintroducing schism into the Church by electing an anti-pope and hence lost
their influence.(71)

While this explanation may be true for the conciliarist
theologians at Basel, there were also papalist theologians who served the pope
well and yet also suffered a loss of power.

AFFECTED BY SHIFTING ECCLESIOLOGIES

The rise and decline of theologians, it has been argued, reflect
an evolving ecclesiology: from the congregatio fidelium with its ascending
power, to the corpus mysticum Christi with power descending from the pope.(72)
Given the conciliarist claim that a council should truly represent the various
constituencies in the universal Church, then the full range of church
officials, including doctores in sacra theologia, should be present and
voting.(73) According to the corporatist model, only those officials should be
present who receive from the pope a delegation of ordinary
jurisdiction.(74)

As noted by Joseph Gill, the conciliarist theory was never really
put into practice, given that officials were never elected by the faithful and
even the theologians present at councils were usually not elected to represent
their colleagues but came as procurators of other officials or entities or as
advisers to prelates.(75) With the restoration of the traditional monarchical
model of the Church based on the principles of hierarchy and jurisdiction,
there was no place for theologians who were teachers rather than members of the
hierarchy.(76) The one group in the hierarchy who had suffered the greatest
loss of power to the pope, cardinals, Roman Curia, exempt religious and
cathedral canons, and civil rulers was the bishops. A council was the forum
where they hoped to regain some of that power, and they were not inclined to
let it be further diluted by theologians and canonists.(77) It was also during
this period of restoration that the classical texts on conciliar ceremonies by
Patrizzi (himself a bishop) and on conciliar power and procedures by Giacobazzi
(also a bishop) solidified the earlier position that theologians enjoy only a
consultative voice in councils. This explanation based on changing
ecclesiologies is generally persuasive.

RETURN TO ANCIENT NORMS

Just as there was a shift in ecclesiologies, so too was there a
cultural shift from late-medieval to Renaissance views that emphasized the
ancient Church as the normative model and saw change as corruption. The
evolutionary process by which abbots, cardinals, and generals of religious
orders came to have a deliberative vote was halted. To grant such a vote to
theologians was denounced as an anomaly and contrary to ancient church
practice.(78)

This argument is also persuasive, but it fails to recognize the
efforts made by men such as Cardinal Louis d'Aleman to justify granting to
theologians a deliberative vote by appeals to ancient church practice.(79)

THEOLOGIANS' INFLUENCE AND BISHOPS' LACK OF COMPETENCY

Theologians came to exercise significant influence when councils
dealt with difficult theological issues and the bishops in attendance lacked
the theological skills needed to resolve the doctrinal questions. Thus
theologians and canonists played an important role in finding the rival popes
guilty of heresy and scandal and thus liable to deposition at Pisa and
Constance, in determining at Rome that Wycliffe had written heretical works and
at Constance that Hus had done so, and in convincing the Greeks at
Ferrara-Florence of the validity of the Latins' theological views. That the
bishops present at these councils were not up to the task is suggested by
Cardinal Guillaume Fillastre's denunciation of the majority of those at
Constance as "mitred asses"(80) and by John-Jerome of Prague's claim that the
bishops at Pavia-Siena would typically display their theological skills at
banquet tables after consuming four or five goblets of wine.(81)

Canon law and conciliar legislation required of a bishop a
"knowledge of letters" (scientia litterarum), a vague standard set by Alexander
III at Lateran III (1179), and repeated by Eugenius IV at Basel (1433), by Leo
X at Lateran V (1514), and by Paul III at Trent (1547).(82) In the late-15th
and early-16th centuries (i.e., after Ferrara-Florence and Basel-Lausanne),
monarchs such as Isabella (1474-1504) in Castile, Ferdinand (1479-1516) in
Aragon,(83) and Francis I (1515-1547) in France made concerted efforts to raise
the educational level of their bishops. At the French king's urging,(84) the
Concordat of Bologna (1516) required that the nominee to a bishopric be "a
respectable master or licentiate in theology or a doctor in both laws or in
either law (civil or canon) or a licentiate who passed a strict examination in
a well-known university."(85)

At the Council of Trent in 1562 a set of reform proposals
presented by the Portuguese ambassador in the name of the youthful King
Sebastian (1557-1578) included the suggestion that scientia litterarum be
certified by the diploma of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in divine or
human law, a degree earned in a school where the system of the studium generale
was maintained.(86) When presented to the Council Fathers for debate, the
proposal was modified to require the degree of doctor or licentiate in theology
or law or that the candidate be graduated in some other way.(87) In the general
congregations of October 10-15, 1562, a good number of bishops expressed
negative views, ranging from rejecting the proposal as superfluous given
previous legislation, to claiming it was too restrictive in requiring an
academic degree, to warning that it seemed to give a false interpretation to
St. Paul's prescription that a bishop should be a doctor (1 Tim 3:2), or to
asserting that a degree in civil law does not qualify one to be a bishop. Other
bishops, however, supported it.(88)

At the 22nd session on September 17, 1562, the council decreed
that a bishop "should rightly (merito) have held the post of master or doctor
or licentiate in sacred theology or canon law in a university, or be proved
equipped to teach others by public certificate of an academic institute. If he
is a regular, he must have an equivalent testimonial from the superior of his
own order."(89) The conciliar bishops' approval of this legislation seems to
indicate at least their sympathy for raising the theological competency of
bishops, a sympathy derived in part from their appreciation of a bishop's need
to be able to defend Catholic teachings from Protestant critiques in their
dioceses or in discussions at the council. It may also suggest that the bishops
sent to Trent by rulers were more educated than the prelates at the councils of
the previous century. If the bishops at Lateran V and Trent were more competent
than their predecessors, they may also have been more inclined to trust their
own abilities and reduce the role granted to professional theologians at these
councils.

In order to make a convincing argument for increased theological
competency among bishops, one needs to move away from anecdotal evidence to
careful prosopographical studies. Cardinal Fillastre's assertion that the
majority of the bishops at Constance were ignorant has not been sustained by
scholarly research.(90) The approval of the Concordat of Bologna by Lateran V
(1516) and its registration by the parlements of France did not assure that its
educational requirements for bishops were enforced. Studies have shown that by
the mid-16th century only 20 percent of the French bishops held degrees in law,
while a mere four percent had degrees in theology,(91) and by the third quarter
of that century this had increased to 22 and 12 percent respectively.(92) By
the end of the century the requirement of a university degree was being
enforced, not only in France but elsewhere too.(93) Still missing from the
scholarly literature is an extended study of the educational backgrounds of the
bishops and religious superiors who attended Lateran V and Trent, especially of
those who sat on the commissions entrusted with doctrinal questions.(94) The
current state of scholarship does not allow one to assert conclusively that the
theological competency of bishops at the councils of the 16th century was
markedly superior to that of their predecessors.

LITTLE IN FACT CHANGED

Finally, it can be argued that despite the protestations that
theologians had only a consultative voice in the councils after Basel, the
procedures followed at least at Trent--where theologians drew up the articles
for debate, clarified the issues, helped to draft the decrees, prevented
decrees with which they disagreed from being adopted, and consented to those
that were passed--clearly indicate that theologians exercised more than a
merely consultative voice. To have adopted a different procedure, given the
apparently significant number of bishops at Trent who were not expert in
theology, while trained theologians were there in abundance, would have been
irrational as d'Ailly warned, or indecens as the cardinal-legate presidents
claimed. To justify a different procedure, one would have to espouse the views
of Nicolas Granier in his translated dialogue Spada della fede. When questioned
by a youth as to whether or not ignorant bishops should attend a council, the
elderly interlocutor responded yes, but went on to say that they should have in
their company one or two doctors in theology and canon law. Even though the
bishops are ignorant and know little, if they are of good and holy life, their
faithful simplicity can on occasion be illuminated by God so that they render
opinions and judgment that are true and Catholic, better than those given by
the learned and prudent.(95)

In the case of the Renaissance Church, bishops who were not expert
in theology seem to have recognized and accepted their limitations and
compensated for them by depending on the advice of professional theologians.
Few if any were the unschooled bishops of Granier's scenario according to which
bishops spoke on doctrinal questions depending solely on the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit. Many of the bishops at Lateran V and Trent did try to assert their
authority, whether out of a felt need to restore the dignity of their office,
or in some cases out of a confidence in their own theological abilities, or to
avoid the problems of previous councils. It is not surprising, therefore, that
an effort was made at these councils to reduce theologians to the status of
mere testes or to call them theologi minores. But the number of eminent
theologian-prelates was apparently inadequate to the needs of a council like
Trent, so that even if Marcello Crescenzio refused to institutionalize the
consultative role of theologians, they nonetheless exercised at least a
consultative voice, if not to some extent also a deliberative voice.

Thus the Renaissance period may not have witnessed a dramatic
rise and fall of theologians' power at councils, but rather theologians
continued throughout the period to exercise a major role which was at times
masked behind such diminishing formulations as witnesses (testes), consultative
voice (vox consultativa), and minor theologians (theologi minores). In accord
with the dictum of Gratian and the comments of d'Ailly, the expertise of
theologians was de facto acknowledged in the procedures used. While bishops
insisted on their prerogative to render judgment, the popes and cardinal
presidents at all the councils, except perhaps Lateran V, adopted procedures to
insure that these episcopal judgments were informed by the knowledge of
theologians.

My historical overview raises theological questions about the
appropriate role for theologians in the development and definition of doctrine
within today's Church. My review of conciliar practice is intended to serve as
a prolegomenon to future theological reflections.

NELSON H. MINNICH is professor of Renaissance
and Reformation history in the departments of history and church history at the
Catholic University of America, Washington. He received his Ph.D. in history
from Harvard University. He has published The Fifth Lateran Council and The
Catholic Reformation (Variorum, 1993), and is collaborating with D. J. Sheerin
on a volume in the Collected Works of Erasmus on The Controversies with Alberto
Pio (University of Toronto, 1999).

FOOTNOTES

1. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a symposium
sponsored by the Societas Internationalis Historiae Conciliorum
Investigandae in Dubrovnik, Croatia, on September 18, 1997 and at the
Annual Meeting of the Renaissance Society of America in College Park,
Maryland on March 27, 1998. An extended treatment of the historical data on
which this article is based will appear as The Changing Status of
Theologians in the General Councils of the West: Pisa (1409) to Trent
(1545-63), in Annuarium historiae conciliorum. I am grateful to Raymond
F. Collins, Michael A. Fahey, S.J., John T. Ford, C.S.C., Dieter Girgensohn,
John E. Lynch, C.S.P., and John W. O'Malley, S.J., for their helpful
suggestions. For a recent study with rich bibliography on a similar topic for
the period following soon after that here under consideration, see Jacques M.
Gres-Gayer, "The Magisterium of the Faculty of Theology of Paris in the
Seventeenth Century," Theological Studies 53 (1992) 424-50. On
the role of theologians in late medieval and early modern Church and
society, see Robert Guelluy, "La place des theologiens dans l'Eglise
et la societe medievale," in Miscellanea historica in honorem Albert de
Meyer 1, Recueil de travaux d'histoire et de philologie, series 3,
vol. 22 (Louvain: Bibliotheque de l'Universite, 1946) 571-89; Yves Congar,
"Theologians and the Magisterium in the West: From the Gregorian Reform to the
Council of Trent," Chicago Studies 17 (1978) 210-24; Georgette
Epiney-Burgard, "Le role des theologiens dans les conciles de la fin du
Moyen-Age (1378-1449)," in Les théologiens et l'Eglise, ed.
Charles Pietri et al., Les quatre fleuves 12 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1980)
69-76; Guy Fitch Lytle, "Universities as Religious Authorities in the Late
Middle Ages and Reformation," in Reform and Authority in the Medieval and
Reformation Church, ed. G. F. Lytle (Washington: Catholic University of
America, 1981) 69-97; Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the
Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1995),
and her "The Importance of Being Doctor: The Quarrel over Competency between
Humanists and Theologians in the Renaissance," Catholic Historical
Review 82 (1996) 187-203.

2. On the function of the apostle, see David M. Stanley and
Raymond E. Brown, "Aspects of New Testament Thought: The Twelve and the
Apostolate," in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown et
al. (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968) 795-99; on bishops as the successors of
apostles, see Antonio Javierre, "Apostle," in Sacramentum Mundi: An
Encyclopedia of Theology, 6 vols., ed. Karl Rahner et al. (New York:
Herder, 1968-70) 1.77-79, and Klaus Berger, "Bishop: New Testament," ibid.
1.220-21; Raymond E. Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (New
York: Paulist, 1970) 47-86; Karl Kertelege, "Apostel," in Lexikon fur
Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed., Walter Kasper et al., ed. (Freiburg: Herder,
1993) 1.851-54, at 853-54. On teachers of theology in the early Church, see
Eugene A. LaVerdiere, "Teaching Authority of the Church: Origins in the Early
New Testament Period," Chicago Studies 17 (1978) 172-87; John E. Lynch,
"The Magisterium and Theologians from the Apostolic Fathers to the Gregorian
Reform," ibid. 188-209; and Roger Gryson, "The Authority of the Teacher in the
Ancient and Medieval Church," trans. Sally Mearns, in A Critique of
Authority in Contemporary Catholicism, special issue with its own
pagination, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19 (1982) 176-87.

8. Ibid. 85. Melchior Cano, O.P. (1509-1560), a prominent
theologian at the Council of Trent, in his De locis theologicis (1563)
attributed the assistance of the Holy Spirit to any opinion held unanimously by
theologians, and felt that bishops were obliged to follow it (Gryson,
"Authority of Teachers" 186-87).

10. On the distinction between an ecumenical council of the whole
orthodox Christian Church and a general council of the Roman Catholic Church
and on the criteria to be used in determining the ecumenical status of a
council, see among other studies Yves Congar, "Conclusion," in Le concile et
les conciles: Contribution a l'histoire de la vie conciliaire de l'Eglise,
ed. Olivier Rousseau (Paris and Chevetogne: Cerf and Chevetogne, 1960) 285-334,
esp. 314-19; his "La primaute des quatres premiers conciles oecumeniques:
Origine, destin, sens et portee d'un theme traditionnel," ibid. 75-109, esp.
109; and his "Church Structures and Councils in the Relations between East and
West," One in Christ 11 (1975) 224-65; Georges Tavard, "What Elements Determine
the Ecumenicity of a Council?" in The Ecumenical Council: Its Significance in
the Constitution of the Church, ed. Peter Huizing, Knut Walf, and Marcus
Lefebure, Concilium 167 (1983) 45-49; and Johannes Madey, "Ecumenical Council
and Pan-Orthodox Synod: A Comparison," trans. Robert Nowell, ibid. 61-68. For
the celebrations in 1974 commemorating the seventh centenary of the Council of
Lyons II, Pope Paul VI in a letter to Cardinal Willebrands (Secretariat for
Promoting Christian Unity), pointedly referred to Lyons II as "the sixth of the
general synods held in the West" (text in Documentation catholique 72 1975
63-67). I am grateful to Professor Patrick Granfield, O.S.B., for several of
these references.

14. Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1959) 349-88 (limited reception of Florentine decrees in
the East up to 1453); Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to
the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1968) 226-28
(repudiation of Florence, especially at the Council of Constantinople); Madey,
"Ecumenical Council" 63 (Orthodox view that the acceptance of a council
by the whole Church is necessary for it to be considered ecumenical).

16. Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 1/1.79-91; on
the importance of the Roman edition (1608-1612) of the general councils for
setting the canon of these councils, see Vittorio Peri, "Il numero dei Concilii
ecumenici nella tradizione cattolica moderna," Aevum 37 (1963) 430-50.
It is interesting to note the publication in Paris in 1612 of the acta of three
councils left out of the Roman edition, namely Pisa (1409), Pavia-Siena
(1423-1424), and Pisa-Milan-Asti-Lyon (1511-1512); see n. 15 above for the
title of the Gallican edition. The inclusion of Pavia-Siena in the list of
general councils of the Church has been argued by Walter Brandmuller in his
Das Konzil von Pavia-Siena 1423-24, 2 vols.,
Vorreformationsgeschichtliche Forschungen 16 (Munster: Aschendorff,
1968-1974) 1.266-67; the legality of Pisa-Milan in its early sessions has been
defended by Walter Ullmann in his "Julius II and the Schismatic Cardinals," in
Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, ed. Derek Baker, Studies in Church
History 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972) 177-93, at 189, reprinted
in his The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages (London:
Variorum, 1976) entry xvi.

17. For example, Pierre d'Ailly argued from the signing of the
decrees of Pisa and Rome by theologians to granting them a deliberative vote at
Constance; see his statement reported in Fillastre's Diary, translated into
English by Louise Ropes Loomis in The Council of Constance: The Unification of
the Church, ed. John Hine Mundy and Kennerly M. Woody, Records of
Civilization: Sources and Studies 63 (New York: Columbia University, 1961)
213-14. Compare with Louis Aleman's assertion at Basel in 1439 regarding
theologians (or "priests") at Rome, recorded in Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini,
De gestis Concilii Basiliensis commentariorum libri II, ed. and trans.
Denys Hay and W. K. Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 120-21.

21. For the names of those who signed the decree of deposition,
see Johannes Vincke, Schriftstucke zum Pisaner Konzil: Ein Kampf um die
offentliche Meinung, Beitrage zur Kirchen- und Rechtsgeschichte 3 (Bonn:
Peter Hanstein, 1942) item 32, 177-205; and Joseph Gill, "The Representation of
the Universitas fidelium in the Councils of the Conciliar Period," in Councils
and Assemblies, ed. G. J. Cuming and Derek Baker, Studies in Church History
7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1971) 177-95, at 182.

22. On the Council of Rome, see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des
conciles 7/1.90-97, esp. 90 (University of Paris names deputies to the
council); Mansi 27.506E (theologians on conciliar commissions that
condemned Wycliffe's writings); on theologians signing the decree, see Loomis,
Council of Constance 214 (d'Ailly's statement), and Piccolomini, De
gestis 120-21 (Aleman's assertion).

24. Gill argues from the signing of the Narbonne agreement: all
but 14 of the 120 non-prelates signed as procurators of others
("Representation" 187-88). The English delegation described in
Fillastre's Diary distinguished between procurators and university-trained
theologians and canonists; see Loomis, Council of Constance 346.

27. Loomis, Council of Constance 231-32 (doctors as members
of commission that asked John XXIII to resign), 449 n. 38 (delegates of four
French universities approve text of John XXIII's pledge to resign), 243
(masters on commission to investigate behavior of John XXIII), 249 (theologians
among members of special commission to deal with heresy).

31. Oakley, "Councils, Western" 651-52; Mansi
29.377AB; for the claim that university clergy as such and not as procurators
constituted about a quarter of the council's membership, see Anthony Black,
Council and Commune: The Conciliar Movement and the Fifteenth-Century
Heritage (Shepherdstown, W. Va.: Patmos, 1979) 33.

32. Piccolomini, De gestis 142-43, reporting the speech of
Juan Alfonsi Gonzalez de Segovia (1393-1458), a professor of theology from the
University of Salamanca who was incorporated into the council at first as a
theologian and later as the sole representative of his university; on Juan, see
Black, Council and Commune 118-19, 124.

33. Ibid. 30-31 (eight of the twelve judges on the conciliar
tribunal on faith were theologians), 38-44 (prominent role of theologians at
council and their expounding of conciliarist ideas).

48. Ferreri, Promotiones (1612 ed.) 81 (doctors as members
of council); 100, 107, 148, 189 (doctors as preachers); 159 (deputations). The
evidence that theologians had only a consultative and not a deliberative voice
is found in the sermon for the second session of Zaccaria Ferreri, who was the
council's secretary and a scrutator of votes (ibid. 91, 98), where he stated
that those who have the deliberative vote are bishops and some abbots, while
lesser prelates, masters, and doctors have only a consultative voice. The text
of this sermon, missing in Promotiones (1612 ed.) 100, is printed in the
original Promotiones et progressus sacrosancti Pisani concilii moderni
indicti et incohati anno domini M.D.XI., ed. Zaccaria Ferreri (n.p., n.d.)
18r-23v, at 21v.

49. Nelson H. Minnich, "The Healing of the Pisan Schism
(1511-13)," Annuarium historiae conciliorum 16 (1984) 59-192, at 163-64
no. 3, reprinted in my The Fifth Lateran Council: Studies on Its Membership,
Diplomacy, and Proposals for Reform, Collected Studies Series 392
(Aldershot, U.K.: Variorum, 1993) entry II. That an effort was made to send
such a delegation of penitent Pisan theologians is evident in Mansi
32.834AB and 865A.

50. While the bull of convocation did not explicitly mention
theologians, Julius II's later statements suggest that theologians were among
those who by custom attend councils and were at Pisa and Lateran V; see
Mansi 32.685B, 687D, 688B, 692B.

51. On the ruling of Julius II and the cardinals to exclude from
the council's deliberations theologians and canonists, see Marc Dykmans, "Le
cinquieme Concile du Latran d'apres le Diarie de Paris de Grassi," Annuarium
historiae conciliorum 14 (1982) 271-369, at 281 (no. 842, q. 3) and 285-86
(no. 842, super 3). De Grassi prejudiced his question with inaccurate
information (perhaps because his sources were deficient) when he suggested that
the penitentiaries of St. Peter's Basilica should not be present at Lateran V
because "neither as doctors do they qualify since they doctors are not chosen
to be present at any council" (281 no. 842, 3ter). There is no mention of
theologians as members of the nine classes (308-09 no. 848, 6) nor of the
congregation of 24 prelates plus some cardinals who deliberated on conciliar
matters (338 no. 968:2).

52. On the presence at public sessions under Julius II of
theologians, see Mansi 32.680C, 747B, 762D.

55. Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent 2: The
First Sessions at Trent 1545-47, trans. Ernest Graf (New York: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1961) 19. The three bulls convoking the Council of Trent in
1542, 1544, and 1545 used almost identical wording when inviting prelates and
those who by law and privilege attend a council; see Concilium Tridentinum:
Diariorum, actorum, epistolarum, tractatuum nova collectio, ed. Gorres
Gesellschaft, 13 tomes (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1901-1985) 4.230, 387,
405; hereafter this collection of documents is cited as CT. On not wanting to
follow the precedents of the recent councils in granting decisive voice to
non-prelates, see CT 1.10; on not wanting university delegations of
theologians to come to the council, see CT10.724, 763.

56. E.g., Francis I of France in 1545 sent twelve religious and
very learned doctors of theology (CT 10.127), Henry II in 1547 sent
Claude d'Espence (CT 6/1.441), and Charles IX sent a delegation from the
University of Paris in 1562 (Mansi 33.209E-210A). Emperor Charles V in
1545 proposed to send two or three friars from Spain who were good theologians
(CT 10.16); Philip II of Spain sent a delegation of theologians
(Mansi 33.210A-D). John III of Portugal sent three Dominican theologians
(CT 4.426 and 6/1.837), Sebastian sent a delegation of theologians
(Mansi 33.210D-E). Mary, Regent of the Low Countries, sent a delegation
from the University of Louvain (CT 7/3.xxxiii-xxxv).

63. The term "congregation of minor theologians" first appears in
the diary of the council's secretary, Angelo Massarelli, on 20 January 1547 (CT
1.459). From February 20 to October 20, 1546, Massarelli referred to it as a
"congregation of theologians" (CT 1.435-49). The word "minor" was added
apparently in an effort to distinguish these congregations from one composed of
prelates who were expert in theology, "a congregation of prelate theologians"
(CT 1.423). Thus Massarelli was not suggesting that just because someone
was a bishop, he deserved to be called a "major theologian." One must wonder,
nonetheless, why the demeaning term "minor" instead of the more appropriate
term "non-prelate" theologian was adopted by officials at Trent.

64. Lennerz, "De congregationibus" 8-18; and see the
admirable report of Wolfgang Sedelius of January 19, 1552, in CT
7/3.517-18.

65. CT 1.70.

66. For the contrary and legalistically narrow view that only
bishops determined doctrine at Trent, see Lennerz, "De congregationibus"
21.

77. For the bishops' efforts to restore their power at Lateran V,
see my "The Proposals for an Episcopal College at Lateran V," in Ecclesia
Militans 1.213-32, esp. 213-15, 231-32, reprinted in my The Fifth
Lateran Council, entry V.

78. See above n. 44 (Patrizzi's critique) and n. 38 (Greek
patriarch's insistence on following ancient norms, Italian humanists viewed the
Byzantines as preserving the language and customs of antiquity).

85. Mansi 32.950DE, translated in Church and State through the
Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentary, trans. and ed.
Sidney Z. Ehler and John B. Morrall (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1954) 139.

86. CT 13.632.

87. CT 8.924.

88. CT 8.928-42.

89. Tanner, Decrees 2.738*.

90. Based on the unsystematic data provided by Konrad Eubel in his
study of the Catholic hierarchy, Walter Brandmuller has calculated that about
140 of the almost 650 bishops of the period held academic degrees. That German
bishops often lacked academic degrees did not necessarily imply that they were
ignorant or had not attended a university. The German bishops were drawn in
good part from the nobility who considered it demeaning to their social status
to take university examinations, even though many attended university lectures
(Konstanz 1.205-06 n. 30). A study of the English episcopate from 1399 to 1485
based on more ample sources shows that the vast majority of bishops, who were
mostly from the middle and gentry classes, were university-trained, and those
who attended councils all held university degrees in theology or law; see Joel
Thomas Rosenthal, The Training of an Elite Group: English Bishops in the
Fifteenth Century, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
n.s. 60, part 5 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1970) 12-19
(educational background), 50 (degrees of participants at councils). From a
representative sample of 30 dioceses in 15th-century Italy, Denys Hay has
determined that only 50 out of 126 bishops were and of these a fifth were
theologians and the rest lawyers; see his The Church in Italy in the
Fifteenth Century: The Birkbeck Lectures 1971 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1977) 99.

91. Frederic J. Baumgartner, Change and Continuity in the
French Episcopacy: The Bishops and the Wars of Religion 1547-1610, Duke
Monographs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 7 (Durham, N.C.: Duke
University, 1986) 237.

92 Ibid. 243. Baumgartner estimates that 84 out of 262 bishops
had a university degree in the period 1547-1589, 64 (24[percent]) in law, 20
(8[percent]) in theology (ibid. 245).

93. Joseph Bergin, The Making of the French Episcopate
1589-1661 (New Haven: Yale, 1996) 208-44, esp. 215-17 (enforcement), 227
(295 out of 351 bishops held university degrees); Moroni, "Dottore,"
Dizionario di erudizione 19.233-39, at 237 (the Congregation of the Council
moved toward enforcement, requiring real and not honorary degrees). It is
unclear where the practice originated whereby American bishops assume the
academic title "Doctor of Divinity" upon appointment; see James-Charles Noonan,
The Church Visible: The Ceremonial Life and Protocol of the Roman Catholic
Church (New York: Penguin/Viking, 1996) 222. I am grateful to Patrick J.
Cogan, S.A., for this reference.

94. At Lateran V the leading lights among the prelates included
Bernardino Lopez de Carvajal, Domenico Grimani, Tommaso de Vio (Cajetan), O.P.,
Antonio Trombetta, O.F.M., and Juraj Dragisic, O.F.M. The council's deputation
on faith has been studied by M. Daniel Price, "The Origins of Lateran V's
Apostolici Regiminis," Annuarium historiae conciliorum 17 (1985) 464-72,
at 465-67, and in my "Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council
(1512-1517)," in Prophetic Rome in the High Renaissance Period: Essays,
ed. Marjorie E. Reeves, Oxford-Warburg Studies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992) 63-87,
at 81-84. At Trent the leading theologian-prelates were, among others, Girolamo
Seripando, O.E.S.A., Stanislaus Hosius, Bartolomeu dos Martires, O.P., Robert
Wauchope, Cornelio Musso, O.F.M. Conv., and Diego Lainez, S.J. Information on
these and other prelate-theologians can be found in various monographs and
scattered through Hubert Jedin's monumental four-volume study of the Council of
Trent. Pioneering prosopographical studies of the bishops at Trent have been
made by such scholars as Giuseppe Alberigo, I vescovi italiani al Concilio di
Trento (1545-1547), Biblioteca storica Sansoni, Nuova serie 35 (Florence: G.
Sansoni, 1959).